JK 1731 
.M4 




’ ... %“'’V ” 

^ .-i ^ , 

4_^ A ^ 


v' .'•■>- C\ J>' 

^'^Va" % ♦ 

« ^:>S^Ss//Jx o ^n, c? o 


< '<...« ,0^ *h *^.‘ A ^^ '».»* .0^ 

^ \sr C ♦ 

•^U. 0^ • 


7 • < O 

■' 

V 

^ /h.^ '^r\ ^ 

’« : 




O r^ o * ^ , P,. , 



«' c; 

'^vr>V 


^ 'O..- I 

0^ 


"O 4,^ •'■'"♦ 


tA 


' * jP '7!, * 1 

t p. 



«• o 
. ^ V 


* 4 O 

o ^ 



V^ .> 

,>>> c. ^ - 

* ^ ♦ 

: 

<V "o , . '* <y 

r\ ' n H a 

- -e^ c° .‘ 

* ^ « 

.V * ^r^//IU^ 

^ O? 



9 C^ r • 

* aO '*7*, * 

'o ►;7,.’ O' V'-.-c’ .■?. 

^ .o'^ ‘J»i4:» v' .' •» 

^ fx. . ♦ 



-Si 


«r ^d. '-^IS 

. '... * .0^ ’^T.. 


'^^/'TY.^'' .-V ' ’ <. ■'»."*■! 

^ \ ,0^ 


.0^ > 

•^iJ. , 



-oV^ 


' o 0^ ' 

<S^ * • » O ’ .-d^ O^ *•<’•’ ^° 

A ♦ a ^ < 

°. J' ‘i ” 

“ 0.^-^ Iv 

,♦ 

A 'o. 


‘ • Cp ^r\ •* 

> .<t!y ^ 





,v ,'rj'. =:^ .-e,- 

.j!\\M/^° '^c,^ 

^ A <, 'o,T* 0^ 

- At t CP • <' ^ jA t 

] ♦ ^/tttp. . r>p 4 ^ . 

. 0^ 
o A ^ 

’/ 

• ♦((usrA ^ Siil^ • A^ ^ 

<^*'o..** 0^ '^ '-. 

VV « N a . 




O _ , __^ V . ^ 






^ o <L 
* A r O 



^ V 



•" cO 


.V % ♦ %■*-,*’ ^0 

v^, -'; •.»'. \ jy 'ri'. % V 

“ ^ A ♦ ■r^JmT^ • av f /k** -<^1^ <A ♦ 

• C^ '^A ^ ( 

"_>w o H/ \N •• -OP • ■ 

- o ** ® wf '^^O a"^ 

‘ % ^ ^/,//X/^ , 


' .. s* A •< 




A 




















jiP rti 


0 ’ 


9 $ ^ 


: ^ v ■ 

'■>•*** ,0^ - ,t r\ ^ 

A. A ^ « 4 > % ^ ’ O ^ 4V^ V 


® ^ ^ 

• <1 r o ^ 

-O..’ ■?,'»• o 

♦ ^ \f f '• * (^ 

•* 






b V 


** 

I.» • °^ o. ^0^ »* • • ' 

t ‘P » 

^ • * ® ^ 

O ^ ^ 

\N ♦ ag7f//y">^ 




V »> ’ • O.r CV 

^ /^Vyk- '^<P' d' 

t '^vp 


qV ^ o N o ^ ^ 


• • 


b V 

*«. 

o ^ "" 


^ i? 

o > 


'O • A ’* ^G 


4 

<j 5 ^ * jP v\ 

',, ■■■•' “V ■^"- / "S,- 

* ^ AV » ((C\ glf^/k'* '^r. CV ♦ 


<!^ ^0*7'* .0 

V G • 

0^ f ^ 


'ly 




• A-?-' 


' 'A ' 




«> « 
^O 

V °* 

• ^ (K\ /k** '' 

" ^ 

0^ ^ ^ 

V « « « A > 


u» 





' % V c-y »‘4t*Stols'. '«>■ 

t '^vP'i^ • 

X ■■' °-.-e'^”.-* .45-'’ 'k ’-.^, 

' » * s 

:> ^ ^ '^jw 

•i^ % C- 

; °,^ ' 

^ 4.K 

*' o H 0 v-^ - ff / n ' A’ 

* o, .0^ ,»• *>> 


o ^ 

^ - o N 0 ^ O ^ 0 ,^* A 0 

zmm. .v^ *. 


o > 


vv 





C° •' 
0^ ° ^ 

.%''"°'v^^^..,,V 

*" ^ <!> ^ IK 



































f 


v: 


• n 




(^^■^V'V'W , 


f'-^ <r^ 


SENATE.... 


.No 86. 


REPORT AND RESOLVES 


ON THE 


RIGHT OF PETITION. 



/ii s 




p 











. aa</ao8a!i crzf. tHoqa!t';:|5 / 


. ’ i 

. vi’d i T I T a ‘I ^ o t 1: j>/f h ^ 





^omniontDraUt) of HWaBoacljttotttB. 


In Senate, April 6, 1838. 


The Joint Special Committee, to whom was referred 
the Memorial of Oliver B. Morris and 629 others, 
legal voters of the town of Springfield, requesting the 
Legislature to protest against the resolution of Con¬ 
gress of Dec. 21, 1837,’' and to whom were also com¬ 
mitted many other petitions of the same tenor, sub¬ 
scribed in all by 24,086 citizens of this Common¬ 
wealth, of whom 12,605 are legal voters, 11,412 
women, and 69 minors, have attended to the duty as¬ 
signed them, and beg leave to 

REPORT: 

The Legislature of this Commonwealth, at its last 
session, thought itself called upon to remonstrate against 
the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 
United States of January, 1837. By that resolution it 
was ordered, substantially, that all petitions, memorials, 
&c., relating to slavery, should be laid upon the table, 
without printing, or reference, or any action whatever, and 
this was deemed by that Legislature, an unauthorized 
and dangerous assumption of power. The remonstrance 



4 


THE RIGHT OF PETITION: April, 


then adopted, has been without effect, but containing as 
it did, an expression of opinion as to the powers of Con¬ 
gress on the subject of Slavery in the District of Colum¬ 
bia, it has itself been made the subject of the very usur¬ 
pation, of which it complained. It was presented to the 
House of Representatives, on the third day of January 
last, and was unnoticed, excepting to be condemned un¬ 
der a standing resolution of that body, adopted Dec. 21, 
1837, to be laid upon the table, without being debated, 
referred, printed, or even read, and the voices of our re¬ 
presentatives in opposition to this mode of disposition, 
and in defence of the honor of their state, were silenced. 
In this, however, there was no peculiar cause of com¬ 
plaint. The resolves of the Commonw'ealth but shared 
the same fate with the memorials of thousands and tens 
of thousands of her people. It was the denial to her of 
a right, to which she was entitled, only in common with 
the humblest of her citizens, and if, in the one case, the 
usurpation was the more apparent and glaring, than in 
the others, it was not the more real, nor justly the more 
odious. 

It is this resolution of Dec. 21, 1837, (which is simi¬ 
lar in character, though yet more comprehensive in its 
effect than that of Jan. 11, 1837,) to wdiich the attention 
of the Committee is called by the petitions referred to 
them, and against which the Legislature is requested to 
protest. Soon after the organization of the Committee, 
they, through their chairman, addressed the members of 
the House of Representatives of the United States from 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, now in attendance 
on the session of Congress; and they have recently re¬ 
ceived in answer the very able and interesting communi¬ 
cation, which they have the pleasure to submit with this 


/ 


1838. 


SENATE—No. 86. 


5 


report, for the information of the Legislature. This 
communication, containing as it does, a full disclosure of 
the circumstances, attending the adoption of the resolu¬ 
tion of the House of Representatives, the practice under 
it, and a development of its principles and effects, ren¬ 
ders unnecessary any course of extended remark, on the 
part of the Committee. 

The right of the people to petition their rulers in a 
despotic government, and their representatives in a re¬ 
public, for redress of grievances, is founded upon princi¬ 
ples of natural justice, and is only protected by written 
laws and constitutions. Under free institutions, cer¬ 
tainly, it is unquestionable and inherent. In the language 
of Judge Story, (3 Comm. 745,) “ it would seem unne¬ 
cessary to be expressly provided for in a republican gov¬ 
ernment, since it results from the very nature of its 
structure and institutions.” He adds. “ it is impossible 
that it could be practically denied, until the spirit of lib¬ 
erty had wholly disappeared, and the people had become 
so servile and debased, as to be unfit to exercise any of 
the privileges of freemen.” 

In point of fact, however, it has been generally se¬ 
cured by guaranties, under almost every government, 
pretending to freedom. The right to petition the king 
and parliament, has been, in England, guarded by many 
statutes and declarations of rights. (I Blk. Comm. 143, 
3 Story, 745.) 

Our fathers brought the right and the love of it, with 
them, from England, and, when we separated from that 
country, it needed no form of enactment, no enrolment 
upon parchment, to give it efficacy under our free institu¬ 
tions. It resided, of course, inalienably in the people 
When the Constitution of the United States was adopt- 


6 


THE RIGHT OF PETITION. 


April, 


ed, it contained no provision upon the subject of this 
right. The first article of amendment, however, secured 
“ the right of the people, peaceably to assemble, and pe¬ 
tition the government for a redress of grievances.” 

It is a singular fact, that this clause met with consider¬ 
able opposition in the Congress of 1789, not from any 
disregard to the right, but because it already existed, and 
was unquestionable. It was said that “ it was a self- 
evident, inalienable right, which the people possess 
“ it would never be called in question,” &c., while, on 
the other hand, though it was “admitted to be an inhe¬ 
rent, existing right,” it was contended that it would be 
well to make positive “ provision that it should not be 
infringed by the government;”—that, sacred and dear as it 
was, it ought to be accompanied with the imposing force 
and solemnity of constitutional sanction. (See 2 Lloyd’s 
Debates, 197—9 : 1 Tucker’s Blk. App. 299.) Had 
the great men of that time foreseen the events of our 
day, they would have found that so far from its being 
true that the right “ would never be questioned,” even 
the added, solemn guaranty of the constitution, would 
be insufficient for its full protection. 

'i'he right is not by the constitution, any more than by 
natural law, limited to any particular class of grievances. 
Every thing, over which government have power, whether 
of private or national concernment, may be made the sub¬ 
ject of petition. It is no matter whether “ the grievance” 
affects the petitioner directly as an individual, or indirectly 
as a citizen ;—alone or in common with the whole nation, 
—whether it is complained of as operating on pecuniary 
and personal interests, or as injurious to the national jus¬ 
tice and honor. In either case, the right of petition is 
sacred and inviolable. 


1838. 


SENATE—No. 86. 


7 


Your Committee have no doubt that this right is now 
virtually denied to a large class of petitioners in the 
House of Representatives of the United States by the 
resolution of Dec. 21, and the other practices, referred 
to in the accompanying communication, which have 
grown up with it, and under it, and are its fit accompani¬ 
ments ; and that this denial is in violation of the spirit of 
the first article of amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States, as well as of natural right, and subversive 
of the best principles of our government. 

It is said, indeed, that there is, in fact, no denial or 
sacrifice of the right; that the petitions are received and 
laid on the table, though they cannot be ‘‘ debated, print¬ 
ed, read, or referred,” or any legislative action had upon 
them. This is but solemn trifling. Is it supposed, that 
this right carries with it no corresponding obligation ? 
That all, which it implies, is a poor privilege in the people 
to put upon paper their desires and thoughts^ which their 
representatives must receive, but may or may not read or 
attend to, according to their pleasure ? What is the right 
of petition—where is the value, which commended it to 
our fathers, if the petition need not be understood, or its 
contents known, by those to whom it is addressed ? But 
it is useless to argue this question. The right to ask, 
supposes an obligation to hear, to consider, and decide, 
or it is the merest mockery, and unworthy of a place in 
a free government. 

Your committee look upon the rzomma/reception of the 
petitions, as by no means an alleviation of the measure. 
It is, at best, but the practical sacrifice of an absolute and 
sacred right, and the desecration of the spirit of the con¬ 
stitution, under the forms of law ; for that very cause the 
more dangerous, and the more to be deprecated and con¬ 
demned. 


8 


THE RIGHT OF PETITION. April, 


There are other direct and indirect consequences of 
the resolution and practices of Congress, which are fully 
developed in the communication before referred to. 

Your committee have nothing here to say of the meas¬ 
ures proposed by the petitioners, whose rights have been 
trampled on. The sincerity and respectability of many 
of them, at least, cannot now be doubted. If their 
cause be bad, it is to be regretted that it should have re¬ 
ceived the temporary aid of persecution and oppression. 
If it be good, the resolutions of the House of Represen¬ 
tatives, even if they do not finally conduce to its advance¬ 
ment, will be but flimsy, cobweb barriers to its onward 
progress. In either view, there is no justification or apol¬ 
ogy for those who, have “ forgotten right,’’ and in their 
attempts to silence these petitioners, have inflicted a 
wound not upon them and their cause only, but upon the 
constitution and upon liberty. 

Your committee have however, on this as on all subjects, 
a strong and unhesitating confidence in the redeeming 
spirit of the people. If, indeed, it were possible that 
they should refuse to redress themselves, they might be 
worthy of the remark of the able and eloquent commen¬ 
tator of the constitution already quoted, “ It is impossi¬ 
ble that it (the right of petition) should be practically de¬ 
nied, until the spirit of liberty has wholly disappeared, 
and the people become so servile and debased as to be 
unfit to exercise any of the privileges of freemen.’' 

The committee, in conclusion, unanimously recommend 
the adoption of the accompanying resolutions. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

For the committee, 

JAMES C. ALVORD, Chairman 


1838. 


SENATE—No. 86. 


9 


Washington, March, 22 , 1838. 

Sir, 

The members of the House of Representatives of 
the United States, from the Commonwealth of Massa¬ 
chusetts, now in attendance on the session of Congress, 
have received the communication, made by you, in behalf 
of the committee of the Legislature, to w'hom were com¬ 
mitted the petitions of a great number of citizens, pray¬ 
ing the Legislature to protest against the Resolution of 
the House of Representatives of the 21st of December, 
1837, and to demand that it may be rescinded. 

After adverting to the fact, that much sensibility has 
been manifested in Massachusetts at the manner, in which 
the resolutions of her Legislature of April, 1837, were 
disposed of under the resolution of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives of the 21st of December, 1837,—you request 
infornnition of the facts in relation to the disposition of 
those resolutions, and the views of the delegation here of 
the action required of the Commonwealth under the cir¬ 
cumstances of the case. 

The resolutions of the Legislature were presented to 
the House by Mr. Cushing on the 18th of September, 
1837, at the special session of Congress, and were laid 
upon the table under a general order of the House, of 
the 11th of September, which suspended the action of 
the House on all matters not embraced in the President’s 
message at the commencement of that session, until the 
annual session in December. 

2 


10 


THE RIGHT OF PETITION. April, 


As the resolution of the House complained of by the 
Legislature of Massachusetts, had expired with the 
House, which adopted it, no occasion existed at that time 
for any action of the House in relation thereto. That 
resolution was adopted by a vote of 129 to 69 on the 
18th of January, 1837, and was in the following words, 
viz.: 

‘‘ Resolved^ That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, 
propositions or papers, relating in any way or to any ex¬ 
tent wdiatever, to the subject of slavery or to the aboli¬ 
tion of slavery, shall, without being printed or referred, 
be laid upon the table, and that no further action be had 
thereon.” 

A similar resolution had been adopted at the first ses¬ 
sion of the 24th Congress, on the 26th of May, 1836. 

A revised edition of the resolution of the 24th Congress 
was introduced into the 2ath Congress for the first time 
on the 21st of December, 1837, under circumstances, 
unusual and extraordinary. It had its origin in a convo¬ 
cation of members of the House, and, it is believed, of 
the Senate also, from the slave-holding States. In the 
presence of the House, while in session, and also at the 
adjournment of the House on the 20th of December, it 
was announced, that a meeting was then being or about 
to be held in one of the committee rooms of the House, 
which the members from the slave-holding States were 
invited to attend. At the meeting, thus called and as¬ 
sembled, the resolution was agreed upon, and a gentle¬ 
man designated to present it to the House. According¬ 
ly, on the next day, it was introduced into the House by 
Mr. Patton of Virginia, under instructions from the meet¬ 
ing, after the rules and orders of the House had been sus¬ 
pended for the purpose of receiving it by the requisite 


1838. 


SENATE-^No. 86. 


11 


vote of two-thirds of the members present, which, howev¬ 
er, would not have been obtained, if all the members, who 
voted against the resolution, had also voted against the 
suspension of the rules. 

On introducing the Resolution, Mr. Patton submitted 
some remarks to the House in relation to it, and among 
other things, said, that “ it involved, so far as he himself 
was concerned and so far as concerned some portions of 
the Representatives of the slave-holding states, a conces¬ 
sion^ which they held to be very considerable. He con¬ 
sidered it, however, as a timely sacrifice to the peace and 
harmony of the country.’’ He also represented that “ the 
desire of those with whose concurrence this resolution 
was offered, w^as to extinguish and not to kindle the 
flame of discord and excitement in the country.” He con¬ 
cluded his remarks by moving “ the previous question,” 
w'hich was carried, and thereby all discussion was pre¬ 
vented on a Resolution, interdicting in express terms all 
action, debate upon, or even the reading of a class of pe¬ 
titions and memorials, embracing as great a number of 
petitioners, as can be found on any class of petitions on 
any other subject, ever presented to Congress at any 
single session, with the exception perhaps of the petitions 
against the annexation of Texas to this Union. 

This resolution, agreed upon by a minority of the 
House, separately assembled out of the House, was adopt¬ 
ed by a majority in the House, without time being granted 
for deliberation or opportunity for discussion ; and many 
of the members, composing that majority, were not ad¬ 
mitted to participate in the councils from which emanated 
this memorable concession^ as it has been miscalled, to 
the right of petition. 

The Journal of the House of the 21st of December, 


12 


THE RIGHT OF PETITION. April, 


1837, contains the following entry of what transpired in 
the House on this occasion : 

“ Mr. Patton moved that the rules prescribing the 
order of business be suspended for the purpose of receiv¬ 
ing and acting upon a resolution in the words following, 
viz : 

“ Resolved^ That all petitions, memorials, and papers, 
touching the abolition of slavery, or the buying, selling, 
or transferring of slaves in any state, district, or teiritory, 
of the United JStates, be laid upon the table without 
being debated, printed, read, or referred, and that no fur¬ 
ther action whatever sliall be had thereon.” 

And on the question. Shall the rules be suspended for 
the purpose aforesaid? It passed in the affirmative. 
Yeas, 136; nays, 60.” 

“ Mr. Patton then submitted the said resolution ; which 
being again read at the Clerk’s table, the previous ques¬ 
tion was moved by Mr. Patton, and being demanded by 
a majority of the members present, the said previous 
question was put, viz : Shall the main question be now 
put? And passed in the affirmative. Yeas, 129; nays, 
62.” 

“ The main question w'as then put, to wit: Will the 
House agree to the Resolution ? And passed in the af¬ 
firmative. Yeas, 122 ; nays, 74.” 

It will be perceived, on referring to the journal, con¬ 
taining the yeas and nays on the preceding questions, 
(which is herewith transmitted,) that the vote of one of 
our number is not entered upon the journal in the nega¬ 
tive on the main question, because it consisted of a pro¬ 
test against the Resolution itself as unconstitutional, null 
and void. 

This Resolution, thus pressed through the House, re- 


1838. 


SENATE—No. 86. 


13 


asserted all, that was exceptionable in the Resolution of 
January, 1837, or that was the subject of complaint in 
the Resolutions of Massachusetts, and it was in terms 
more obnoxious to the charge of virtually denying the 
right of petition, inasmuch as it expressly prohibited the 
reading or debating of any of the proscribed class of pe¬ 
titions, memorials, and papers. 

The adoption of this Resolution presented new and 
sufficient reasons for desiring the consideration of the 
Resolutions of Massachusetts, with a view to induce the 
House to rescind its order of the 21st of December, and 
on the 3d of January, 1838, Mr. Cushing called up those 
Resolutions. The proceedings had in relation to them, 
appear in the following extract from the Journal. 

“ Mr. Cushing presented Resolutions adopted by the 
Legislature of Massachusetts, ‘ upon the subject of 
slavery in the District of Columbia, and the right of pe¬ 
tition,’ heretofore presented to this House on the 18th 
September, 1837, and moved to refer the same to a 
select committee with instructions to report a resolution 
rescinding the resolution adopted by this House on the 
21st day of December last.” 

The speaker decided, that the said Resolutions of the 
Legislature of Massachusetts came within the provisions 
of the order of the House of the 21st of December ulti¬ 
mo, and would therefore lie on the table, and the said 
resolutions were laid on the table accordingly. 

From this decision of the chair no appeal could be 
taken with any reasonable hope, that the House would 
reverse it, or make a more just and respectful disposition 
of the Resolutions of a State, asserting that Congress 
had exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of 
Columbia, and consequently, the right to abolish slavery 


14 


THE RIGHT OF PETITION. April, 


therein. By the practical construction, and in accord¬ 
ance with the spirit and intent, if not with the terms, of 
the order of the 21st of December, no petition, no resolu¬ 
tion^ no paper of any character, touching that subject, 
however temperate in its spirit or respectful in its lan¬ 
guage, or however high the source from wdiich it eman¬ 
ates—can be debated, printed, read, or referred. It must 
be laid upon the table, and no further action whatever can 
be had thereon. 

On the 5th of February, another effort was made, on 
the motion of Mr. Lincoln, to rescind the resolution of 
the 21st of December. On presenting a memorial from 
certain inhabitants of Shrewsbury, praying the House to 
rescind that Resolution, he moved to refer the memorial 
to a select committee, with instructions to report a reso¬ 
lution, declaring the Resolution of the 21st of December 
to be “ a violation of the constitutional guaranty of the 
right of petition, and subversive of the freedom of debate 
in their Representatives, and that it be rescinded.” On 
this motion the question of consideration was demanded, 
and thereupon the question was stated, “ Will the House 
now consider it When a motion was made to lay that 
question with the memorial on the table, which prevailed. 
Yeas, 128 ; nays, 75. 

The motion to lay on the table has precedence of the 
motion to consider, and is not debateable, so that a dis¬ 
cussion was again prevented. This was the only occa¬ 
sion when the yeas and nays were called as a test of the 
vote of the House, on a motion to rescind the Resolution 
of the 21st of December. Similar motions, how'ever, 
have been repeatedly, but unsuccessfully made by various 
members. 

It thus appears, that the House has effectually enjoined 


1838. 


SENATE—No. 86. 


15 


silence upon the interdicted topics, and has refused to 
remove the injunction by a large and resolute majority. 

The order of the 21st of December, was not the spe¬ 
cific action of the House upon any petition or memorial, 
then before it. It was an insulated order, having no ap¬ 
propriate place in any class of the ordinary acts of the 
House, unless it be among the rules and orders, which 
prescribe the manner in w'hich petitions and other papers, 
which may come before the House, may be read, printed, 
debated, and referred. The rules and orders, however, 
have hitherto presented no example of an order, proscrib¬ 
ing a whole class of petitions of a diversified character, 
or of a rule requiring, that the Resolutions of the Legis¬ 
lature of a state upon a subject within the exclusive ju¬ 
risdiction of Congress, or upon any other subject, shall 
not be read, debated, or referred. 

By this order, too, the doom of numerous and various 
petitions is pronounced, before they are presented or con¬ 
sidered ; and this departure from the just and ordinary 
course of legislation seems to be scarcely less justifiable 
than a judicial decree in advance of the facts, to which 
it may be applied, and without hearing the parties, who 
may be affected by it. 

If this order admits the nominal right of petition by 
permitting the reception of petitions—it prohibits any 
and every exercise of legislative power on the part of the 
House, and of representative power by its members, 
which can give value or efficacy to the right of petition. 

But the refusal to bear the petitions of the people is 
not confined to the direct operation of the order of the 
21st of December. A majority having become familiar 
with the principle of excluding from the consideration of 
the House a numerous and somewhat indefinite class of 


16 


THE RIGHT OF PETITION. 


April, 


petitions—other classes are excluded at the pleasure of 
the majority. Thus numerous petitions against the an¬ 
nexation of Texas to this Union, from various parts of 
the country, and signed by not less than one hundred 
thousand petitioners, have been presented to the House 
during the present Congress and have been laid upon the 
table. These petitions do not fall within the proscriptive 
order, but when presented by a member, who moves a 
reference to a committee, a motion immediately follows 
to lay on the table. The motion to lay on the table, 
having precedence of the motion to commit and not 
being debateable, always prevails ; and this has now be¬ 
come the invarial)le usage of the House in relation to 
this class of petitions. The same course is pursued in 
the disposition of all petitions to rescind the order of the 
21st of December. Thus the freedem of debate and the 
right of petition, share a common fate. 

We have not yet been able to ascertain in an authentic 
form, the number of petitioners, whose petitions have been 
laid upon the table under the operation of the order of 
the 2ist of Decern!)er or by special motion to lay upon 
the table, as habitually made in the cases before specified, 
but they probably constitute nine tenths of all the peti¬ 
tioners, whose petitions have been presented to the House 
during the present session. 

In sustaining the right of petition, in the House, the 
delegation from Massachusetts have been of one mind. 
We have consulted our own sense of duty, and at the 
same time have conformed, as we believe, to the will of 
our constituents, in opposing the order of the 21st of 
December at every stage of its passage, and in making 
every reasonable effort to rescind it since it was adopted, 
but without success. The hope and the power of re- 


1838. 


SENATE—No. 86. 


17 


dress remain with the people. When other free states 
shall have asserted and maintained the right of petition, 
as fully and firmly, as Massachusetts and her citizens 
have the people will be restored to the free and unre¬ 
stricted enjoyment of this sacred right. 

Of the course, which the Legislature of Massachusetts 
may deem it a duty to adopt in reference to the disposi¬ 
tion of its own Resolutions under the order of the 21st 
of December, it may be deemed improper for us to ad¬ 
vise. The Legislature, we have no doubt, will act wise¬ 
ly with reference to this subject, and with a just regard 
for the honor and dignity of the Commonwealth, and the 
rights and best interests of her citizens. 

We are with great respect, Sir, 

Your obedient servants, 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 
JOHN REED, 

LEVI LINCOLN, 

C. CUSHING, 

W. B. CALHOUN, 
RICHARD FLETCHER, 

S. C. PHILLIPS, 

GEO. GRENNELL, Jr. 
WM. S. HASTINGS. 

To the Hon. James C. Alvord, Chairman of a Joint 
Committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts, 


N. B. Messrs. BRIGGS, BORDEN, and PARMENTER, of the Massa¬ 
chusetts Delegation, being absent from the city, have not had an opportunity 
of uniting with their colleagues in the foregoing letter. 

3 



''rt' 


4 '* 

-1/ ' 










1838 . 


SENATE—No. 86. 


19 


RESOLVES 

On the Right of Petition. 

Whereas, the House of Representatives of the United 
States, did, on the twenty-first day of December last, 
adopt the following resolution, to wit : 

^'‘Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, and papers 
touching the abolition of slavery, or the buying, selling, 
or transferring of slaves, in any state, district, or terri¬ 
tory, of the United States, be laid upon the table, with¬ 
out being debated, printed, read, or referred, and that no 
farther action be had thereon”— 

And whereas, the said resolution is a virtual denial of 
the right of petition, which results from the very nature 
of our government, and is secured by the Constitution of 
the United States, and is also subversive of the freedom 
of debate : and tvhereas, by force of the said Resolution, 
the respectful memorials of many worthy citizens of this 
Commonwealth and of other states, asking for the redress 
of a grievance, over which Congress has exclusive con¬ 
trol, as well as the resolves of the Legislature of this Com¬ 
monwealth, have been deliberately slighted and con¬ 
temned, and the voice of Massachusetts, through her re¬ 
presentatives in Congress, has been silenced ;—therefore 
Resolved, That, we, the Senate and House of Repre¬ 
sentatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in 
General Court assembled, do in the name of the people 
thereof, solemnly protest against the said Resolution, as 
an usurpation of power, in violation of the spirit-of the 


20 


THE RIGHT OF PETITION. April, 1838. 

Constitution of the United States ; subversive of the 
fundamental principles of our own free institutions ; at 
war with the prerogatives of the people ; destructive of 
the relations between them and their servants, in assum¬ 
ing to change those servants into masters; derogatory to 
the dignity and rights of the states, and dangerous to the 
Union. 

Resolved^ That our Senators and Representatives in 
Congress, in their earnest and united assertion and de¬ 
fence of the right of petition and freedom of debate, 
against the attacks and assumptions of unauthorised 
power, deserve, and have, the continued and cordial ap¬ 
probation of the people of this Commonwealth. 

Resolved^ That His Excellency the Governor be re¬ 
quested to forward a copy of these resolves to each of 
our Senators and Representatives in Congress, with a 
request that the same may be laid before that body. 


-PD la 9 





a 


ii 


' ‘'Y : T I ^ 



lY '^z' 


\i 




^ >K 



, f 


wnf":\ 


, j 




M;;W! VV:W „ 



l. - r 





-t*. 


I 





\ 

f 


I \ 


* # 

'^r.'V' 


:*t 


f 


i* \ ( r 



\ 



. \ 





* - ' V 

^ ' T 

‘ I 

■' < 

t . 


I 


i . 


rV 



» 











•• J" ... %, .4V o.., <s. cs^ .^'•. .4> c 

^ ♦ ae/r/^ ^ .N 4 ^ 

". 0^ 





o. »„,.’ .0 *./.• <j,^ 



• -♦ 


o^ : 


• * ' A ' A 

4^ J. 0 W O ^» 

•I 6^ . 

•o A > 






• 'fj. ♦ 

vP V • 

-- -- 

- * A^ 

A O 4 

A C ® ” ® ♦ ,0r 

\ 0^ 

• 4 0 * 

V A ^ 

’* A 

A'' ^ A ^ 

- --^m- : 

‘* 4.^"^%. °.> 

r\'^ ^ L»» . <i^’ ft 0" ® ♦ rO^ • ‘-' •» ^o A^ ® 

••% O. .<y \/ 5*;^'4. AV 

^ .fA^^Ai ^ aV * '^rv «■ A^ R0 />L^ ^ 







• Ik 



♦* "*• ♦ A*?* 'oW^?L\V' ■> av ^ 

" A <> A^ '°-*’* A A^ 

4l 'I* ”4^ V ^ _ '^ ^ 4^^ 



0 



’^Z ^ 

^ 0 ^ 




"sr^jr^ * N 
•o A 

/ /% \ 


^ 4* • 

* 'mM,^ 

^ ,Vv^ . _ 








4 v- N.' >.» '*^/B>Ji^ ■» ao' rU • 2)> 4 

O^ "o . V '* A 

- A . 

t> „ O -0 • / ■» o « O .0 

y .»*o, V^ ;^ 4 . C\ 


^ * w r-^ * 

, 4 • ® ® 

''•«- V ®*!XL'‘v 4O 

'"o ♦ «stei»'. .■?►" 



• • 


40 


-<v » 



. , n • O^ 

“ 4 X^ ♦ Sd 

• : ^=? 

* ^ '^j. °‘’ * "S 



C*^"^ ♦‘"vKfe’- 4 .'' ,. 



o 

^ • -- >' 4 

O' 'o . 4 * A 

'^o A<^ < 

■» o 4 *^ *. 

* ■»bv^ :»! 

» lO 















i* '^> 4 ^ Jk(I//^^^^ * %.^ ^ + j^?/7/55=!2- 

>r -ov^ ■n.o^ :^g.\ 

„V Q * ^ n ^ n*' ^ % cS^ O .^XVVXNe * i-k ^ 

V^ s*. 

♦(((xWa*’ 

* • A\\>9^//A o <- 

o T/y/^r^u^ • « y . 


’.VW* -s^ \ 

'“•*‘ .A 


O N 9 




'b V^ 

^°-nf 




^O ^ 

4 ^ ^ • AvrvrAJ ^ 

V Sf>~ * <3^^///]l^ > •flC' o 1^ vl> *■ * 4 O. 

«<>. • 11 • A > o *«o® n*^ ^ 4 ^ -OL*^ 

, y . 9 -Vs*. ^ ^ ^ -V ^ 

sep-%* -iv •» ♦ av 

' s* r..^ ^u"* X ^ ^ ^ <»v 

/•O t • ‘■JJ ♦ C ® " ® ♦ .«.'». 

* 4 * .-W. -V ' '5s^\n'^'' ”5^^ ^ * J^lilZ/y^. 

^ 0^ ' - •< o «. ■C^ K J^[{l//>^ 


’^vs * 





'♦ ^ aO^ 9^*0, <;>. V^ V.o ^ 

■* /^y ^ ^ ^ ^v 

o' 




^ • ts 25> ■ •* •-' XT- u> -^^mxjw- ■» 

'o.a® A <r 

.‘J^,*, °o j-i-*’ ^o’ 

’* '^ov^ . •=., c. 

X ‘^Vyvv^^ip ♦ bw^ ^ <<*^«Jll\^ ^ * '70V//yy^' * kX 

%*"’*’ y... '‘■«.«’%o'^ '^'^ *^.’* A '^° 

“ ”Wliw* 

^ A V o W/ \ N^ ■» X V V* B 

.-V ^ ^ ^ % 

r .'■'*♦ o. 

t 


“■’ 'U ‘■»*»’ A® 

•» 

4&' 


•e,^ aO 

sii® • ♦ 


^A. 

,. - ** -* ' 

' ~ ^ O 4^ • ,-c:SS^ ^ ^ ^ vj 

*; '»bv^ ■^•^>, 


-A 0^ 


o* qO ^ -h cx 

A® ^ ® ' ’ • A -2 

(^^.* .❖'"V -.mii^-' .'i'C, 

'I ^ 

'O , s - A <> 



® ■* ® c,*^ o • 

^O A^ 0 ® ** ® ♦ fV • •• ' • X *^0 

' o a Ci^ J-^jyy^Z ■* o A 



